MMA vs TMA

[Hanzou]

People always think they have found something better, people think a lot of things.

Yeah but in this case Kano applied scientific principles to spiritual mumbo jumbo and developed a more effective martial art in the process. He removed the crap that didn't work, and streamlined everything to benefit the practitioner, and make them more efficient in process. In short, Judo/Bjj is the car, and Classical Jj is the horse drawn carriage. Which is the better method of getting from A to B?

I turned out fine, the people who trained me turned out fine, and the people who trained them.

It was still a dumb way to train. There's no logical reason to do something like that when there are far safer methods available.

Again only in your narrow mind.

Better to have a narrow mind than being confined to a wheel chair because I was pretending to be a samurai warrior.

It reminds me of those clowns who do backyard wrestling.

Without seeing their performance and knowing what and how they trained, their experience and the format of the rolling, means absolutely nothing. I have sparred with former kickboxers and had no trouble at all defending against them, still means nothing.

Format of the rolling? We just squared off and I took them down and subbed them. If you dont know how to stop a take down, you're going down. If you don't know how to counter a hold, you're not escaping the hold. If you don't know how to transition, you're screwed. If you try to punch me, or put your hands out, I'm going to break your arm or your shoulder.

It's that simple.

In the end, we're fundamentally doing the same thing. I'm simply utilizing a more modern form of Jujutsu. Again, the car vs the horse drawn carriage.

 

[Hanzou]

Taken from the web page:

In 1886?

According to Koizumi Gunji, the final score was nine victories and one draw for the Kodokan. Like the dates of the event mentioned above, this figure is also subject to some variation depending on the sources used. That the Kodokan was an overwhelming victor is beyond dispute.

In 1888;

The rules also favored the Judo men. There seems to have been no time limit. The use of striking and kicking techniques known as atemi-waza and joint techniques called kansetsu-waza were prohibited, thereby drastically limiting the Jujitsu men. Clean throws indicated victory, and this, too, must have placed the Kodokan people at an advantage.

Were they the same rules? The article does not say.

And

Can these tournaments really be called Kodokan Judo against Jujitsu; or were they merely Jujitsu matches where Kano had been able to secure the help of stronger practitioners? And somewhat more curious, why didn't Kano personally take part in any of the many bouts?

So it doesn't actually prove anything.

This page answers those questions;

http://www.bestjudo.com/article/1233/shiro-saigo-judos-secret-weapon

This part is especially potent;

"Jigoro Kano 'stacked the deck' by using students who'd previously trained in Jujutsu".


This is at least partially true, in the sense that many students of Kano had previous experience in various other arts, but completely misses the point. For example, it's well known that Shiro Saigo was studying Tenshin Shin'yo Ryu at the same dojo where Jigoro Kano was an assistant instructor. This was before Shiro Saigo started training exclusively under Jigoro Kano in what was to become Judo.


Just as Jigoro Kano himself had studied both Tenshin Shin'yo Ryu, and Kito Ryu, before founding Judo.


The point that is apparently being missed by some, is that the fact that some students of Kano had previous training doesn't explain anything. You still have Jujutsu students (that all train at one particular dojo) defeating other Jujutsu students.


What was the difference between "Kano's Jujutsu" and the other styles of Jujutsu that allowed Kano's students to overwhelmingly defeat them?


In my opinion, it was the difference in training methods. Kano made a strict division between Jujutsu techniques that could be safely practiced at high speed and full power, and those techniques that could not. If they couldn't be practiced with full speed and power, he relegated them to Kata practice.


Kano's students could concentrate on the relatively fewer techniques, and become much more proficient while keeping injuries to a minimum. During a discussion of this article at E-Budo.com, Joseph Svinth made the point that keeping injuries to a minimum is not a point to be glossed over. By keeping injuries down, the Kodokan Judoka could essentially multiply the time they spent practicing, as they were not recuperating from numerous injuries.

Yet another reason why you should train on mats.

 

[Mon Mon]

Hanzou what do you get by debating on a message board how does it effect your training? You will do what you think is best just as others will do what they think is best this is fact. So what is the point of all this boredom?

 

[Steve]

So if they were conceived and practiced 200 years ago they would be traditional (and exist)?

A traditional art is defined in how it is practiced not how old it is. If two arts are conceived at exactly the same time and one is practiced by following traditions and one is not then you cannot distinguish them based on their age. Simple logic really.

Every art has its own culture and traditions.

 

[Hanzou]

Hanzou what do you get by debating on a message board how does it effect your training? You will do what you think is best just as others will do what they think is best this is fact. So what is the point of all this boredom?

I enjoy conversating with other martial artists, especially with people outside the MMA circle of styles.

 

[Mon Mon]

ok

 

[Steve]

Can we all agree that terms like "better" and "effective" are subjective? When people use Simpson's cartoon clips to describe the art I enjoy, how can we have a constructive conversation?

I think that the term "traditional" is too vague. I think many good points have been made on both sides. As I said in my first post in the thread, do what you want. If you enjoy it, go for it. Just be self aware. Be honest about what you're learning and what you're not learning.

Is BJJ the be all and end all of self defense training? Certainly not. But I know what I know. I know that I am reasonably fit and have a strong core. I know that if I am taken to the ground by surprise, I am confident that I can get back up quickly, even if my opponent has some training. I know that the techniques I practice work, and which ones I'm best at. I know these things because of how I train.

I chose BJJ because I like the traditions and the culture, and I really like that, because we don't punch or kick each other, we can spar at full speed.

So, does any of that make BJJ the best martial art? It does to me. If it didn't, I'd train in something else. But, that's not relative to your art. "Best" is subjective, and we all have different measures for it. Best for me isn't the same as "best" for you.

 

[Koshiki]

I appreciate the comments, but I think I'd say that self defense schools have rules as strict and well defined as any sport school. When you train full contact to the groin, do you wear a cup? Do you wear padding of some kind.

I don't actually wear a cup. Yeah, it hurts a lot sometimes. I've had enough bad experiences with cups making things hurt WORSE, that I kind of gave up on them. What happens is that we DON'T train full contact to the groin. Or pretty much anywhere else. If you can train full contact with a certain technique to a specific target, it seems to me, that you have picked a fairly ineffective target. In terms of ending a fight as quickly as possible, that is. For example, straight punch to the abs? Sure, go full force. If it doesn't stop your sparring buddy, it likely won't stop other people, either.

You mention that you use control when sparring. Is there a time when it's okay to spar without control?

No, there isn't. That's called trying to hurt each other, not sparring, and it's bad news for everyone involved. That's why that is our one rule. "Don't break your sparring buddy; you won't get a new one."

When you are training a technique that you know is dangerous to a particular joint, do you ever break the joint? Is there ever a time when it's okay to break a training partner's wrist?

No. Obviously, there never is. There is rarely a time that it's ok to break ANYONE'S wrist.

Those are rules.

What I think you guys are getting hung up with is that some styles have created a formalized, competitive ruleset and some have not. But rules are rules.

I know. I think, if you re-read the post that you quoted, you'll find that it doesn't say, "there are no rules." It says that Sport MAs have clearly defined lists of rules, and SD MAs have something like one general rule of "don't break each other." I then went on to say that they have the same end result, preventing most serious injuries, and that making a distinction between them is silly. Especially since there is a lot of overlap.

I think we agree on this point...

Finally,
"So, does any of that make BJJ the best martial art? It does to me. If it didn't, I'd train in something else. But, that's not relative to your art. "Best" is subjective, and we all have different measures for it. Best for me isn't the same as "best" for you." -Steve.

Thank you for that. That is the agreement which SHOULD have been reached on page one. Which is where the thread should have ended. Kudos to Steve.

 

[Hanzou]

I agree that what is "best" is subjective, I disagree that what is "effective" is subjective.

For example, learning break falling on wooden floors and concrete isn't as effective as learning how to break fall on mats.

I don't think that the problem is the art themselves, I think they're main issue is their training methods, and their inability to switch from a 16th century art for armored samurai warriors, to a 21st century art for modern people.

Kano already took care of that over 130 years ago. The problem is some folks want to be Samurai (and Ninjas).

 

[ballen0351]

I agree that what is "best" is subjective, I disagree that what is "effective" is subjective.

For example, learning break falling on wooden floors and concrete isn't as effective as learning how to break fall on mats.

I don't think that the problem is the art themselves, I think they're main issue is their training methods, and their inability to switch from a 16th century art for armored samurai warriors, to a 21st century art for modern people.

Kano already took care of that over 130 years ago. The problem is some folks want to be Samurai (and Ninjas).

WHat arts taught to 16th century Armored warriors is still taught today in main stream schools?

 

[Steve]

I agree that what is "best" is subjective, I disagree that what is "effective" is subjective.

For example, learning break falling on wooden floors and concrete isn't as effective as learning how to break fall on mats.

I apologize if you've explained this in the past, but could you define "effective" for me? Also, could you explain why learning break falls on a wooden floor is less effective than on a mat?

I don't think that the problem is the art themselves, I think they're main issue is their training methods, and their inability to switch from a 16th century art for armored samurai warriors, to a 21st century art for modern people.

Kano already took care of that over 130 years ago. The problem is some folks want to be Samurai (and Ninjas).

If someone wants to be a samurai, what's the problem? It's not for me, that's for sure. But some people don't like Whiskey, although I can't imagine why.

 

[Hanzou]

I apologize if you've explained this in the past, but could you define "effective" for me? Also, could you explain why learning break falls on a wooden floor is less effective than on a mat?

Effective: Capable of achieving the desired result.

Learning to fall on wooden floors is less effective because its more likely to cause injury. If you're injured,you can't train, reducing your ability to become proficient. If you get thrown to the floor six times and are injured, you're going to less skilled than a guy who got thrown six-hundred times and isn't injured. That detail was one of the keys to the Kodokan's victory over older styles of Jujutsu.

If someone wants to be a samurai, what's the problem? It's not for me, that's for sure. But some people don't like Whiskey, although I can't imagine why.

I have no problem with it..... Until people start saying that their 600 year old style of MA is suited for modern times. Again, its like a guy walking around wearing medieval clothes, and carrying around a broadsword, saying that his style of medieval fighting is an effective form of self defense. We'd think such a person is a nut job, and we wouldn't take him seriously.

However, when the exact same thing occurs with an Asian theme, people DO take it seriously.

 

[Hanzou]

WHat arts taught to 16th century Armored warriors is still taught today in main stream schools?

Takenouchi Ryu for starters. Pretty sure they claim to have been founded in 1532.

 

[jks9199]

I enjoy conversating with other martial artists, especially with people outside the MMA circle of styles.

But you don't seem to be open to anything anyone says that's not in agreement with your beliefs... Do you also enjoy poking sticks into hornet's nests?

I don't think many people have said anything negative in this thread about BJJ, except that it's not the ultimate be-all and end-all of martial arts. And it's NOT. You don't seem to be at all open to the idea that there is a method and purpose to the training methods in many traditional martial arts. You seem to be locked into this idea that rolling and sparring are the only ways to practice effectively -- but then you hold up Krav Maga as a good approach, since it's eclectic. Most Krav Maga limits sparring... they do extensive partner work and application, but I'm not aware of much sparring. (In the Krav Maga World Wide's LE program, they do not spar. In fact, free sparring is not something you see in most LE DT training...)

 

[ballen0351]

Takenouchi Ryu for starters. Pretty sure they claim to have been founded in 1532.

I said main stream that's not main stream I cant even find a school that teaches that around here

 

[Hanzou]

But you don't seem to be open to anything anyone says that's not in agreement with your beliefs... Do you also enjoy poking sticks into hornet's nests?

I'm merely being honest. It's not my intention to make people upset.

I don't think many people have said anything negative in this thread about BJJ, except that it's not the ultimate be-all and end-all of martial arts. And it's NOT. You don't seem to be at all open to the idea that there is a method and purpose to the training methods in many traditional martial arts. You seem to be locked into this idea that rolling and sparring are the only ways to practice effectively

Well to be fair many in this thread used the silly argument that Bjj is a sport, and then proceeded to use the sport vs. non-sport line. You know, "my art isn't a sport so I can grab your junk, or bite your eyes out" kind of deal.

-- but then you hold up Krav Maga as a good approach, since it's eclectic. Most Krav Maga limits sparring... they do extensive partner work and application, but I'm not aware of much sparring. (In the Krav Maga World Wide's LE program, they do not spar. In fact, free sparring is not something you see in most LE DT training...)

When did I say anything about Krav Maga?

 

[Hanzou]

I said main stream that's not main stream I cant even find a school that teaches that around here

I don't see what it being mainstream has much to do with anything. The point is you got people who are pretty much doing the Japanese equivalent of renaissance festivals.

Also Ninjutsu is pretty mainstream.

 

[K-man]

But you don't seem to be open to anything anyone says that's not in agreement with your beliefs... Do you also enjoy poking sticks into hornet's nests?

... as he has done on other forums.

I don't think many people have said anything negative in this thread about BJJ, except that it's not the ultimate be-all and end-all of martial arts. And it's NOT. You don't seem to be at all open to the idea that there is a method and purpose to the training methods in many traditional martial arts.

You seem to be locked into this idea that rolling and sparring are the only ways to practice effectively -- but then you hold up Krav Maga as a good approach, since it's eclectic. Most Krav Maga limits sparring... they do extensive partner work and application, but I'm not aware of much sparring. (In the Krav Maga World Wide's LE program, they do not spar. In fact, free sparring is not something you see in most LE DT training...)

In KM we don't have any free sparring as such. All sparring is done in response to an attack or threat, either with weapon or without. OMG, I just realised. KM must be another crap art because we don't demonstrate our ability in competition!
:asian:

 

[ballen0351]

I don't see what it being mainstream has much to do with anything. The point is you got people who are pretty much doing the Japanese equivalent of renaissance festivals.

Also Ninjutsu is pretty mainstream.

Because your claim was that Traditional martial arts was not effective then you use obscure examples that either don't exist or are very limited in scope to prove the point. You ignore all main stream Karate styles Like Goju Ryu, Shotokan, Isshin Ryu, Wado Ryu, ect. because they hurt your point. So Yes Main stream has a lot to do with it.


Are you saying Ninjutsu in not effective for self defense?

 

[Hanzou]

Because your claim was that Traditional martial arts was not effective then you use obscure examples that either don't exist or are very limited in scope to prove the point. You ignore all main stream Karate styles Like Goju Ryu, Shotokan, Isshin Ryu, Wado Ryu, ect. because they hurt your point. So Yes Main stream has a lot to do with it.

Well, I didn't bring up Karate because I was talking about classical Jujitsu versus modern Jujitsu (Judo/Bjj). And yeah, Takenouchi-Ryu certainly does exist, and there a few schools in the Japan, US, and Europe.

Are you saying Ninjutsu in not effective for self defense?

Let's just put it this way; If I had to send my daughter to a martial art school to learn self defense, it wouldn't be a Ninjutsu school. Additionally, if someone asked me if they should take up Ninjutsu for self defense, I would recommend against it.

That said, if people out there enjoy the art, more power to them. I wish them nothing but the best in their training.